Search

It is not known whether the current territorial organization for acute revascularization treatments in ischemic stroke patients guarantees similar time to treatment and functional outcomes among different levels of institutional stroke care. We aimed to assess the impact of time to treatment on functional outcomes in ischemic stroke patients who received intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) alone, bridging (IVT plus thrombectomy), or primary thrombectomy in level 1 and level 2 Stroke Units (SUs) in Triveneto, a geographical macroarea in Northeast of Italy. We conducted an analysis of data prospectively collected from 512 consecutive ischemic stroke patients who received IVT and/or mechanical thrombectomy in 25 SUs from September 17th to December 9th 2018. The favorable outcome measures were mRS score 0–1 and 0–2 at 3months. The unfavorable outcome measures were mRS score 3–5 and death at 3months. We estimated separately the possible association of each variable for time to treatment (onset-to-door, door-to-needle, onset-to-needle, door-to-groin puncture, needle-to-groin puncture, and onset-to-groin puncture) with 3-month outcome measures by calculating the odds ratios (ORs) with two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) after adjustment for pre-defined variables and variables with a probability value ≤ 0.10 in the univariate analysis for each outcome measure. Distribution of acute revascularization treatments was different between level 1 and level 2 SUs (p < 0.001). Among 182 patients admitted to level 1 SUs (n = 16), treatments were IVT alone in 164 (90.1%), bridging in 12 (6.6%), and primary thrombectomy in 6 (3.3%) patients. Among 330 patients admitted to level 2 SUs (n = 9), treatments were IVT alone in 219 (66.4%), bridging in 74 (22.4%), and primary thrombectomy in 37 (11.2%) patients. Rates of excellent outcome (51.4% vs 45.9%), favorable outcome (60.1% vs 58.7%), unfavorable outcome (33.3% vs 33.8%), and death (9.8% vs 11.3%) at 3months were similar between level 1 and 2 SUs. No significant association was found between time to IVT alone (onset-to-door, door-to-needle, and onset-to-needle) and functional outcomes. After adjustment, door-to-needle time ≤ 60min (OR 4.005, 95% CI 1.232–13.016), shorter door-to-groin time (OR 0.991, 95% CI 0.983–0.999), shorter needle-to-groin time (OR 0.986, 95% CI 0.975–0.997), and shorter onset-to-groin time (OR 0.994, 95% CI 0.988–1.000) were associated with mRS 0–1. Shorter door-to-groin time (OR 0.991, 95% CI 0.984–0.998), door-to-groin time ≤ 90min (OR 12.146, 95% CI 2.193–67.280), shorter needle-to-groin time (OR 0.983, 95% CI 0.972–0.995), and shorter onset-to-groin time (OR 0.993, 95% CI 0.987–0.999) were associated with mRS 0–2. Longer door-to-groin time (OR 1.007, 95% CI 1.001–1.014) and longer needle-to-groin time (OR 1.019, 95% CI 1.005–1.034) were associated with mRS 3–5, while door-to-groin time ≤ 90min (OR 0.229, 95% CI 0.065–0.808) was inversely associated with mRS 3–5. Longer onset-to-needle time (OR 1.025, 95% CI 1.002–1.048) was associated with death. Times to treatment influenced the 3-month outcomes in patients treated with thrombectomy (bridging or primary). A revision of the current territorial organization for acute stroke treatments in Triveneto is needed to reduce transfer time and to increase the proportion of patients transferred from a level 1 SU to a level 2 SU to perform thrombectomy.

Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is the treatment of choice for most patients with acute ischemic stroke. According to the recently updated guidelines, IVT should be administered in absence of absolute exclusion criteria. We aimed to assess the proportion of ischemic strokes potentially eligible and actually treated with IVT, and to explore the reasons for not administering IVT. We prospectively collected and analyzed data from 1184 consecutive ischemic stroke patients admitted to the 22 Stroke Units (SUs) of the Veneto region from September 18th to December 10th 2017. Patients were treated with IVT according to the current Italian guidelines. For untreated patients, the reasons for not administering IVT were reported by each center in a predefined model including absolute and/or relative exclusion criteria and other possible reasons. Out of 841 (71%) patients who presented within 4.5 h of stroke onset, 704 (59%) had no other absolute exclusion criteria and were therefore potentially eligible for IVT according to the current guidelines. However, only 323 (27%) patients were eventually treated with IVT. Among 861 (73%) untreated patients, 480 had at least one absolute exclusion criterion, 283 only relative exclusion criteria, 56 only other reasons, and 42 a combination of relative exclusion criteria and other reasons. Our study showed that only 46% (323/704) of the potentially eligible patients were actually treated with IVT in the SUs of the Veneto region. All healthcare professionals involved in the acute stroke pathway should make an effort to bridge this gap between eligibility and reality.